Stamp duty on bills of lading and direct cargo delivery was held unsustainable where no delivery order existed.

Stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act attaches only to an instrument, and a bill of lading is excluded from the definition of instrument under Section 2(1) and outside Section 74. A bill of lading is a document of title, not a delivery order, and Article 24 therefore did not apply where imported cargo was delivered directly at a captive jetty without entrustment to the Port authorities or any delivery order. Bills of lading fall within the Union field under Entry 91 of List I, so the State lacked competence to impose stamp duty through the impugned circulars. The circulars were invalid insofar as they required stamp duty clearance for such direct deliveries.

---

---

Issues: Whether stamp duty under Article 24 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 could be levied on direct delivery of imported cargo at a captive jetty against a bill of lading without a delivery order, and whether the impugned circulars requiring stamp duty clearance were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The charge under the Bombay Stamp Act attaches to an instrument, not to a transaction in the abstract. A bill of lading is expressly excluded from the definition of instrument under Section 2(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 and is also outside the operation of Section 74 of that Act. A bill of lading is a document of title to goods under Section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, but it is not the same as a delivery order, which contemplates bailment and an instruction by the bailor to the bailee to deliver goods. On the facts found, the imported cargo was delivered directly to the petitioners at their captive jetty through the conveyor system, without entrustment to the Port authorities and without any delivery order. Article 24, which governs delivery orders in respect of goods, therefore did not apply. Since bills of lading fall within the field of stamp duty reserved for the Union under Entry 91 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, the State lacked competence to impose stamp duty on them by the impugned circulars. The circulars, insofar as they demanded stamp duty clearance for such direct deliveries, were inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The levy of stamp duty on the petitioners' direct receipt of cargo against bills of lading was unsustainable, and the circulars insisting on stamp duty clearance were invalid insofar as they applied to such cases.

---